4 ms·

> so are IP addresses, despite the fact that people do not have IP addresses And car registration numbers and passport numbers and street addresses are also pe

by Y-bar 4y ago

> so are IP addresses, despite the fact that people do not have IP addresses And car registration numbers and passport numbers and street addresses are also personal identifiable information despite the fact that people does not have those either. Just like IP addresses. This is a good thing. > Personal data is not defined in terms of the context in which it appears This is a good thing because it closes a dozen loopholes and allows good-faith actors to remain on the right side of the law without much effort. > if you have someone's personal data and you are told to stop processing it, you must stop processing it. But storage, erasure and transmission are all classed as processing, and it's logically impossible not to do at least one of these things This just shows a poor understanding of the law, or you are just hand-waving things you have no knowledge about. This is not how the GDPR works. At all.

mjw_byrne 4y ago
> And car registration numbers and passport numbers and street addresses are also personal identifiable information despite the fact that people does not have those either. Just like IP addresses The analogy doesn't work. A passport number is always "of" a person, because passports are issued to people. An IP address is often, (even usually, for IPv4), far-removed from an individual. Also see M95D's response above: "no it's not". You're confident that there's a good reason why an IP address is personal data and he's confident it's not personal data. This is what I mean when I say it's a poorly-written law. > This is a good thing because it closes a dozen loopholes and allows good-faith actors to remain on the right side of the law without much effort. Fair enough; in my opinion, ambiguity and hand-waving in legislation is too high a price to pay, and is also unnecessary. It's literally their job to codify the rules rigorously. > This just shows a poor understanding of the law, or you are just hand-waving things you have no knowledge about. This is not how the GDPR works. At all. I know my example isn't a real contradiction (and see also M95D's response in which he points out how the rules actually apply). I'm giving an example of language and terminology in the law which is on its face confusing and sloppy.

by Y-bar 4y ago

mjw_byrne 4y ago

> And car registration numbers and passport numbers and street addresses are also personal identifiable information despite the fact that people does not have those either. Just like IP addresses The analogy doesn't work. A passport number is always "of" a person, because passports are issued to people. An IP address is often, (even usually, for IPv4), far-removed from an individual. Also see M95D's response above: "no it's not". You're confident that there's a good reason why an IP address is personal data and he's confident it's not personal data. This is what I mean when I say it's a poorly-written law. > This is a good thing because it closes a dozen loopholes and allows good-faith actors to remain on the right side of the law without much effort. Fair enough; in my opinion, ambiguity and hand-waving in legislation is too high a price to pay, and is also unnecessary. It's literally their job to codify the rules rigorously. > This just shows a poor understanding of the law, or you are just hand-waving things you have no knowledge about. This is not how the GDPR works. At all. I know my example isn't a real contradiction (and see also M95D's response in which he points out how the rules actually apply). I'm giving an example of language and terminology in the law which is on its face confusing and sloppy.